Update- Carrying of knives

[Melonfish]

yeah read second post. as i say, i'm a government concern not a free citizen anymore..
saddening

 

[wanderingblade]

I, for one, would appreciate the comments of someone who 'knows'.

This is the real trick - it's the old maxim - 'circumstance is everything'.

Any hypothetical situation can only ever receive hypothetical responses based on a best guess after making many assumptions about he events being discussed.

We'd really need to know why there was a police presence in a rural location like a wood (not usually patrolled) Has there been a report of a problem? Is the area notorious for poaching? Did you skin a rabbit in the picnic area and build a firepit in the kiddies sandpit?

Unless we know what has caused the police presence we can't really judge what they will be looking for or their level of 'alert' when confronting you.

Also, the attitude of the person being questioned will have a great bearing on how events unfold. While using a UKPK to whittle a stick on private land sounds reasonable, a response, when questioned, of " Oi, Copper - S. 139, read it and weap - you can't do nuffin' - I'm untouchable" will bring about an alltogether different result than a more polite and courteous attitude.

Because of these and so many other variables we can only ever go on a best guess scenario and any 'reasonable cause' offered may well have it's validity tested in the courts.

Common sense is your friend.

 

[durulz]

I have no qualifications to speak on this at all, but some insight into police thinking can be gleaned from this thread here:

http://www.ukpoliceonline.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=31449

But it takes some wading through, to pick out the bits relevant to your question

Graham

Now THAT was a VERY interesting read. It would be 30mins well spent for anyone interested to read that thread. Not least becaue it's written by serving officers.
Kind of confirmed what I already thought - common sense will carry the day.

 

[BigShot]

Melonfish - thanks for the first response, and thanks even more for the 2nd one.

The reality is that an officer can stop and search just about anyone they want to, and sometimes they don't even need to make up something to be suspicious about.

A couple of examples would be s60 of the Criminal Justice Act and s44 of the Terrorism Act.

s60 of the Criminal Justice Act provides:
(1) Where a police officer of or above the rank of superintendent reasonably believes that
(a) incidents involving serious violence may take place in any locality in his area, and
(b) it is expedient to do so to prevent their occurrence,
he may give an authorisation that the powers to stop and search persons and vehicles and.... shall be exercisable at any place within that locality for a period not exceeding twenty four hours.

So without you knowing it, an area could be subject to such an authorisation and by simply stepping inside it you are now subject to stop and search under that power.


s44 of the Terrorism Act provides similar authority but for different reasons.
While the powers of stop and search (limited to removing outer layers of clothing like hat, coat and scarf, a patdown, serching your bag and having you empty your pockets) strictly should only be used where there is evidence of a specific terrorist threat they have been used extremely liberally so far. Most often at protests, but there's scope from them to be used in train stations and the likes too.
If you were in a town centre, whether for everyday reasons or passing trrough to catch a train, and there was a large protest going on there (and there's a good chance you wouldn't know anything about it until you arrived in the centre) you could be searched under either of those powers.


Of possible interest to those who have mentioned appearance and clothes...
...the police can NOT stop and search you because of your appearance, if you believe that to be the case this quote from the direct.gov website might be of interest.

If you think that you've been treated unfairly and feel you've only been stopped because of your race, your religion or the clothes that you wear, you can make a discrimination complaint.

The form that you were given when you were stopped should contain all the details of the officer that stopped you, so you can take your complaint straight to the police station that they work at.

If you're not satisfied with the answers you get, or if you want further advice before making a complaint, your local Citizens' Advice Bureau will be able to help you.

 

[durulz]

I need to make a polite request.


Can people PLEASE stop coming out with the classic "you're unlikely to get stopped and/or searched if you're not acting suspiciously" line?
It is not only miles from the truth and somewhat unhelpful, taking that approach is liable to get people into trouble if it isn't closely and inextricably coupled with a reccomendation to stay firmly within the definition of a folding pocket knife (3" or less, non locking).


I have been stopped more times than I can remember and many of those times have been searched.

I've been stopped while driving along (and driving well I might add)
I've been searched in the street (whilst doing nothing more suspicious that putting one foot in front of the other and moving in a general forwards direction).
I've been searched when walking through an area with a football stadium on match day (I didn't know it was a match day) even though I wasn't going to the ground.

You do NOT have to be acting suspiciously, breaking a law or dressed in a particular way to be searched.



As a side request - can we please stop looking at a knife licence as if it would be a good thing?
Looking to that kind of future in ANY kind of positive way is utter insanity. By looking for that we make a whole raft of mistakes, including legitimizing the view that knives are something so dangerous they need to be licenced, they are not.
By looking for that we necessarily refuse perfectly safe people their right to carry a sharp tool too, there are many reasons a non-violent person might be refused that licence and that should never be acceptable.
By looking for that we endorse this "war on knives" which is NOTHING MORE than a smokescreen to get around the complete and utter failure to win the "war on crime"! That failure has come about for a load of reasons, one of which is the simple fact that the focus has been more on the crime and the tools of crime rather than the much trumpeted "causes of crime".

We need to stop being so bloody complacent.
Those of us lucky enough to live in the countryside need to stop saying things which might get the more urban among us believing they are so very unlikely to be searched when that is simply not the case.
We need, even more, to stop making people think that if they don't act suspiciously they won't be searched when any urban area can have mandatory searches put in place.
We need to stop talking like the people who want knives off the street and stand our bloody ground instead.
We have nothing to be ashamed of, we have no reason to want, and no benefit to be gained from licencing and everything to lose when it comes to our freedom to carry a legitimate tool on a daily basis and to practice our hobbies when we can be seen to have "good reason".

While the law has not changed, this guidance is worryingly indicative of the way this society is going, and if those of us who stand to lose out don't do something, we WILL get down to a choice between breaking the law or carrying on as we currently can.

Rant over.

You may get stopped in Manchester a lot, but not down here. This isn't the Bronx, so I'm not going to waste time sweating about whether I'll get pulled over by a policeman or not. Can't even remember the last time I even SAW a police officer!
Different locations require different actions. In Manchester you may need to be careful about being pulled over but down in the Weald of Kent (specifically the villages of Sutton Valence and Boughton Monchelsea) you don't even see the buggers! Therefore, don't act suspicious and you won't get pulled over. Unless you live in Manchester, or the inner cities, obviously. I think that's the point - act appropriately to your environment. What constitutes 'appropriately'? Well, if you can't work it out then you shouldn't have a sharp object in the first place and you're probably stuffed.

 

[BigShot]

Now THAT was a VERY interesting read. It would be 30mins well spent for anyone interested to read that thread. Not least becaue it's written by serving officers.
Kind of confirmed what I already thought - common sense will carry the day.

Almost every day of the week I'd agree with you on that point. Common sense will usually carry the day.

However, I've come across enough officers who are nothing more than a waste of a uniform to know that won't always be the case.

There are serving officers who are complete and utter numpties who will give you a choice between having your legally owned and carried good siezed, or being arrested and taken in for processing/questioning and if you're lucky a court appearance.

The vast majority of the experience I've had with the police have been positive - of the umpteen times I've been pulled over while driving, I've only been searched a couple of times (both times by very polite officers, done with respect, and at the time I did not carry a pocket knife so completely incident free) but a few times I've come across officers who were doing nothing more than "looking for an excuse".

One did about 3 laps of my car making sarcastic remarks while his colleague tried his level best to remain professional. On his 3rd lap the sarcastic officer spotted a small bit of rubber peeling away from my rear wiper and with a triumphantly smug look said "You do realise that is an offence, don't you?" (emphasis his).

It was a very quiet night.
Once he had found the "offending" wiper blade he went into a full-on bad-cop routine threatening with arrest and so on.

Nothing but trouble - it's the coppers like that I'm afraid will be dragging law abiding people off the street or stealing their property.

It's the coppers like that I don't believe have a single iota of common sense.

 

[BigShot]

You may get stopped in Manchester a lot, but not down here. This isn't the Bronx, so I'm not going to waste time sweating about whether I'll get pulled over by a policeman or not. Can't even remember the last time I even SAW a police officer!
Different locations require different actions. In Manchester you may need to be careful about being pulled over but down in the Weald of Kent (specifically the villages of Sutton Valence and Boughton Monchelsea) you don't even see the buggers! Therefore, don't act suspicious and you won't get pulled over. Unless you live in Manchester, or the inner cities, obviously. I think that's the point - act appropriately to your environment. What constitutes 'appropriately'? Well, if you can't work it out then you shouldn't have a sharp object in the first place and you're probably stuffed.

And when people get on a train to go to a meet?
And when you're travelling through a town from one rural area to another and happen to get a train full of football fans on their way to a match and the police are searching people at the station you change trains at?

The objection I have is not to the difference in police behaviour when comparing rural areas to towns and cities, but to the generality of people saying you're very unlikely to be searched.

"nah'ah mean mate?"
(Had to Manc it up a bit at the end there - haha)

 

[durulz]

This is the real trick - it's the old maxim - 'circumstance is everything'.

Any hypothetical situation can only ever receive hypothetical responses based on a best guess after making many assumptions about he events being discussed.

We'd really need to know why there was a police presence in a rural location like a wood (not usually patrolled) Has there been a report of a problem? Is the area notorious for poaching? Did you skin a rabbit in the picnic area and build a firepit in the kiddies sandpit?

Unless we know what has caused the police presence we can't really judge what they will be looking for or their level of 'alert' when confronting you.

Also, the attitude of the person being questioned will have a great bearing on how events unfold. While using a UKPK to whittle a stick on private land sounds reasonable, a response, when questioned, of " Oi, Copper - S. 139, read it and weap - you can't do nuffin' - I'm untouchable" will bring about an alltogether different result than a more polite and courteous attitude.

Because of these and so many other variables we can only ever go on a best guess scenario and any 'reasonable cause' offered may well have it's validity tested in the courts.

Common sense is your friend.

Yup, fair enough. Although that's my point really - we get all fired up and indignant about this but, as someone else posted, NO ONE has actually been arrested in pursuance of their camping/bushcrafting activities. Anyway. Let's assume some well-meaning Daily Mail reader typer has seen a couple of chaps making off into the woods with packs etc. No knives reported. Or maybe the police are looking for something else and stumble into said campers (as actually happened to me one. Although we hadn't made up camp - just hiking along a trail - packs an' all (no knives). Police asked if we'd seen anything suspicious. We said 'no' and asked what they were looking for. 'A body,' they said. They asked us to call if we saw anything). Anyway. The police come across the wild campers (let's ignore the legal status of wild camping for this argument - our concern is the presence of knives over 3"). When questioned, the campers are polite and courteous and admit to having large knives (of the kind bushcrafters are wont to carry). No poaching. No skinning. Just a billy on the boil over a small open fire (again, this is a question on the presence of knives - but I can see how extenuating circumstances are important). To whit, the wild campers are acting responsibly, but in a murky area of the law.
What do you reckon?
Personally, I would hope nothing would happen. At most a talking to and a suggestion of keeping things discrete and careful and, maybe, names and addresses taken in case.
Thoughts?

 

[tommy the cat]

Surely you've answered it yourself - if you don't want to attract unwanted attention then change the 'army gear' look. Or be more discrete.

I haven't answered my own question as I have never been stopped! However, at worst I look woodsy and not a vagrant or would dressing up as a chav be more appropriate?
I think in my defence if I look at least like I am going to the woods rather than going for a pint at least they may use discretion and realise I am not carrying a weapon for defence/aggresion.
Personally I think my mate will say if he stopped me and realised there was no intent that he would let me off.
Dave

 

[durulz]

Awright, geez! (just to maintain the Manc tone)
Well, what can I say? As I said, act appropriate to your environment. If you live in an inner city area, particularly a city that has issues, then be extra cautious and extra careful. Time your travel journies accordingly. If you happen to have got it wrong...well, cross your fingers and hope you don't get pulled over. And ensure you pack any potentially incriminating items deep down in your pack. City cops are always going to have a different attitude to some things than rural cops. Is that ideal? No! Is that fair? No! Is that right? No! But that's the way it is, and you're better off acting around that.
And, I think, it is generally safe to say that most people do not get pulled over.

And when people get on a train to go to a meet?
And when you're travelling through a town from one rural area to another and happen to get a train full of football fans on their way to a match and the police are searching people at the station you change trains at?

The objection I have is not to the difference in police behaviour when comparing rural areas to towns and cities, but to the generality of people saying you're very unlikely to be searched.

"nah'ah mean mate?"
(Had to Manc it up a bit at the end there - haha)

 

[durulz]

I haven't answered my own question as I have never been stopped! However, at worst I look woodsy and not a vagrant or would dressing up as a chav be more appropriate?
I think in my defence if I look at least like I am going to the woods rather than going for a pint at least they may use discretion and realise I am not carrying a weapon for defence/aggresion.
Personally I think my mate will say if he stopped me and realised there was no intent that he would let me off.
Dave

Yup, I think you're absolutely right.

 

[Draven]

I'd advise against attempting to secure written permission from the bus or train companies, their concern will be to minimize their liabilities and risk and so it is likely that they will take the easy option and say no.

Probably right here.

If your tools are securely wrapped up and tied into a bundle at the bottom of your pack and you are in possession of a return ticket to your bushcrafting holiday destination then that should suggest that you have reasonable cause to have your tools with you, in the unlikely event that a police constable does question you, be polite and explain your plans, if that isn't sufficient in his or her eyes, seek legal advice at the first opportunity and do not accept a caution on the promise of your predicament being sorted out more quickly.

Will do, thanks - out of curiosity what would happen if I didn't accept a caution and they decided I had no good reason?

Additionally, have you visited Skye before? I cannot imagine that you will find many opportunities to use an axe there.

Used to live there bud Not sure if I mentioned, but I use the axe for carving, not firewood. I am going to press it into use splitting firewood though, since my sister has an open fire, and I'm curious how that will go - not great, I suspect, but I want to try anyway! It's the tool I'm most comfortable with, though, when roughing out, and I've even managed to get used to it for some finer work, so as I say, it will be used for that rather than felling or limbing I sometimes prune a willow tree at my brother-in-laws request but find a saw and my mora adequate, and it's generally only the latter that's necessary.

No it wouldn't be, you have far too much confidence in your government and perhaps more importantly far too much confidence in any government yet to come.

Fair point

 

[wanderingblade]

What do you reckon?
Personally, I would hope nothing would happen. At most a talking to and a suggestion of keeping things discrete and careful and, maybe, names and addresses taken in case.
Thoughts?

I think we'd all hope the police would have a chat, pass the time of day and be on their way.
Maybe I'd expect to have my name and address taken - the policeman may be thinking 'if this wood goes up in flames I know where to look' or if they receive a complaint from the land owner etc at a later date it could be seen as prudent to make a small note just in case - and nothing wrong with that.

Again, unless you are there and witness it, it's guesswork.

 

[BigShot]

Draven...
What would happen?

If I recall correctly the standard procedure is if you don't accept a caution you'll be arrested, charged, interviewed and passed on to the Crown Prosecution Service, who, if this memo is right, will pursue the case and you'll be asked to account for yourself in court.

If the court decides you had good reason you'll be fine. (well, if you count being wrongfully arrested, dragged before the court after months of waiting and tried like a common crook as fine - you'll be fine)

If the court decides you did not have a good reason you'll be convicted and given anything from a fine to a custodial sentence.
You will be able to appeal, but in the case of custody you'll be doing it from behind bars.



durulz - I think for the most part we agree. My main objection is not to the disparity between rural and urban policing, but to reassuring people that they are unlikely to be searched. If you're out in the sticks then no, it probably won't happen (but still might) but there are an increasing number situations where one might be searched "for no reason" the more urban an environment you are in.

Oh, and as for timing your journies accordingly...
...would you SERIOUSLY check the match fixtures for every major club between the Weald of Kent and (let's say) Loch Lomond before booking your train to a meet or a bushy holiday up there?
Really?

All the London clubs, Brimingham City, Manchester United, Manchester City (alternatively Sheffield Wednesday, Leeds United, Newcastle United and Sunderland if you're going up the East Coast rather than West) and then (joy of Joys) Glasgow Rangers and Celtic?
(Apologies to fans of any team I missed out, it's nothing personal - I'm just not that into football! Haha!)

I know what you're saying, but I really can't see that happening, and even if you did pass along a line that the fans of those clubs (or their opponents) might be using - would you really change your travel plans accordingly?


"In a bit our kid!"

 

[gunslinger]

Surely you've answered it yourself - if you don't want to attract unwanted attention then change the 'army gear' look. Or be more discrete.

So what do you consider suspicious?
You seem to be saying that we should all conform to a standard mode of dress to avoid being stopped and searched.
I would assume that would be a collar and tie then.
Oh well thats me nicked.

I am 54 years old and have been stopped twice in the last two years,I drive an old but tidy merc estate previously the choice of country doctors etc.
I was on neither occassion wearing army gear, in fact on both ocassion I was wearing jeans ,polo shirt and proper shoes (dont do trainers).
I was stopped the first time because I supposedly looked like someone they wanted to speak to.Perhaps santa had just robbed a bank . They searched my car with my agreement before they had even ascertained my identity.
The second time I was stopped because one of my brake light bulbs had blown and on this occasion they asked if they could search the car,but they could not explain why so I refused.After being detained for 30 mins of my life and threatened with warrants and arrest,they eventually let me go. No apology. I wished I had let them search it ,as I have nothing to hide,but why should I.
If you have never been stopped it is more by luck than judgement.
GS

 

[sandbender]

out of curiosity what would happen if I didn't accept a caution and they decided I had no good reason?

Best case, you'll be on your way again as convincing you to accept a caution is the easy route that they would prefer.

Used to live there bud

I'll get me coat

 

[Simon]

I have no qualifications to speak on this at all, but some insight into police thinking can be gleaned from this thread here:

http://www.ukpoliceonline.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=31449

But it takes some wading through, to pick out the bits relevant to your question

Graham

That Wayne, he gets everywhere causing trouble

Edited to Add; Bruce Wayne that is

 

[nickg]

I need to make a polite request.


Can people PLEASE stop coming out with the classic "you're unlikely to get stopped and/or searched if you're not acting suspiciously" line?
It is not only miles from the truth and somewhat unhelpful, taking that approach is liable to get people into trouble if it isn't closely and inextricably coupled with a reccomendation to stay firmly within the definition of a folding pocket knife (3" or less, non locking).


I have been stopped more times than I can remember and many of those times have been searched.

I've been stopped while driving along (and driving well I might add)
I've been searched in the street (whilst doing nothing more suspicious that putting one foot in front of the other and moving in a general forwards direction).
I've been searched when walking through an area with a football stadium on match day (I didn't know it was a match day) even though I wasn't going to the ground.

You do NOT have to be acting suspiciously, breaking a law or dressed in a particular way to be searched.



As a side request - can we please stop looking at a knife licence as if it would be a good thing?
Looking to that kind of future in ANY kind of positive way is utter insanity. By looking for that we make a whole raft of mistakes, including legitimizing the view that knives are something so dangerous they need to be licenced, they are not.
By looking for that we necessarily refuse perfectly safe people their right to carry a sharp tool too, there are many reasons a non-violent person might be refused that licence and that should never be acceptable.
By looking for that we endorse this "war on knives" which is NOTHING MORE than a smokescreen to get around the complete and utter failure to win the "war on crime"! That failure has come about for a load of reasons, one of which is the simple fact that the focus has been more on the crime and the tools of crime rather than the much trumpeted "causes of crime".

We need to stop being so bloody complacent.
Those of us lucky enough to live in the countryside need to stop saying things which might get the more urban among us believing they are so very unlikely to be searched when that is simply not the case.
We need, even more, to stop making people think that if they don't act suspiciously they won't be searched when any urban area can have mandatory searches put in place.
We need to stop talking like the people who want knives off the street and stand our bloody ground instead.
We have nothing to be ashamed of, we have no reason to want, and no benefit to be gained from licencing and everything to lose when it comes to our freedom to carry a legitimate tool on a daily basis and to practice our hobbies when we can be seen to have "good reason".

While the law has not changed, this guidance is worryingly indicative of the way this society is going, and if those of us who stand to lose out don't do something, we WILL get down to a choice between breaking the law or carrying on as we currently can.

Rant over.

Abolutely agree - if you want evidence then take a look at the debacles with guns - dogs etc. The acceptance of a licensing system is the very tool the politicians want for a nice easy coup (read vote winning). Its a ratchet, it only ever tightens, never loosens.

I included the whole quote - read it all again - complacency will take a handful of bad apples off the streets and thousands of non offensive innocent people with it.

People still breed pit bulls (illegally) they still get guns (illegally) and the people who took the kudos for these 'safety' measures are nowhere to be seen - retired rich and obscure.

My rant over

Cheers
Nick

 

[gunslinger]

You may get stopped in Manchester a lot, but not down here. This isn't the Bronx, so I'm not going to waste time sweating about whether I'll get pulled over by a policeman or not. Can't even remember the last time I even SAW a police officer!
Different locations require different actions. In Manchester you may need to be careful about being pulled over but down in the Weald of Kent (specifically the villages of Sutton Valence and Boughton Monchelsea) you don't even see the buggers! Therefore, don't act suspicious and you won't get pulled over. Unless you live in Manchester, or the inner cities, obviously. I think that's the point - act appropriately to your environment. What constitutes 'appropriately'? Well, if you can't work it out then you shouldn't have a sharp object in the first place and you're probably stuffed.

Well perhaps I had better put my collection on Ebay whilst I can,because I for one have no idea what you mean by act appropriately. See my post above 1st time I was coming back from Sainsburys 2nd time I had just dropped my daughter home.

I take it you never leave Kent then ???

GS

 

[durulz]

Well perhaps I had better put my collection on Ebay whilst I can,because I for one have no idea what you mean by act appropriately.

Don't be obtuse - yes you do. Would you walk down your local high street with an axe on one hip and machete on the other? If you really don't think that's inappropriate, or even just unsure, then may I have first dibs on your collection?